[veraEFF]

Yes, as you'll see in the post, we note that patent owners can redefine words, and that's ok.

But where the issue comes up is if that's not clear. Patents are supposed to put people on notice of what is--and conversely, what is not--free for others to use. Here, by using the word "integer", which has a very precise and definite meaning in math and science, that conveys certain information.

Part of the problem with the current state of our patent laws is that claims are not clear and the public isn't on notice of what the patent owners are claiming. This discussion is a good example of that. If the patent owner was clear in what they meant, would we be having this discussion. Would the patent owner itself have claimed that "n=1" infringes if it was clear that n>=2?

Mathematics precisely defines the term "integer." Mathematics also provides quick and easy ways to exclude "1". None of that was done here, to the detriment of the public's notice of when they were infringing.

Patents, despite how esoteric they have become, are ostensibly written for those with skill in the art. If we're all having problems understanding what, exactly, the patent owner meant (including the patent owner!) there's a problem.

*edited for clarity

[kazinator]

> Yes, as you'll see in the post, we note that patent owners can redefine words, and that's ok.

They can do that in this case if their only use of the word "integer" in the entire spec is in reference to this parameter, and if it has been otherwise clear all along (at least "to someone skilled in the art") that it doesn't make sense for the parameter to be less than two.

If I write a spec in which some number occurs that can only be 1, 2, 3 or 4, and it is the only integer, and the constraint to those four values is clear all along, there is no harm with later adding a glossary item which says "integer: in this specification, a noun denoting one of the values 1, 2, 3 or 4". It just reflects the fact: the only use of integer in the spec is in reference to a value which is one of these four.

If the 3 case infringes on some other patent, but the 1, 2 and 4 cases do not, what's wrong with reducing the scope of the patent by removing 3, and adjusting the glossary item?

Of course, patent holders shouldn't have infinite latitude in remotely manipulating the meaning of the text at will by means of shifting glossary entries.

[Natsu]

> there is no harm with later adding a glossary item

When are you adding this? If you do that when obtaining the patent, all is well and good.

If you do that in court, after saying otherwise, as has been done here, there's quite a lot of harm. People have a right to know what is and is not patent infringement, as they're on the hook for big money.

If you can just change what your patent does and does not cover, on a whim, when fishing for money in court, there's quite a lot of harm in that. Millions of dollars worth of harm. Nobody had any way of knowing what idiosyncratic definitions of words you were using and yet everybody else was responsible for not infringing upon your patent.